AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc A380M occupy opposite extremes of the accelerator spectrum, yet both serve distinct compute roles. The database records a single OpenCL benchmark for the MI300X, scoring 317,994 points, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The Arc A380M has no recorded benchmark score in the database and sits at the 50th percentile, meaning the comparison relies on architectural specifications and the MI300X’s measured results against its nearest rivals.

FAQ

Q: What is the core architectural difference between the MI300X and the A380M?

A: The MI300X uses AMD’s CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The A380M uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, providing 186.0 GB/s. The MI300X delivers roughly 28.6 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. The MI300X is approximately 20 times faster in FP32 throughput.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The A380M has a TDP of 35 W and lists no suggested PSU, reflecting its mobile-oriented MXM form factor.

Q: Does either GPU support modern graphics APIs?

A: The A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for standard graphics rendering workloads.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to its nearest recorded rivals?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994 in OpenCL. It trails the NVIDIA B200 (345,482) by 8% and the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) by 5%, while leading the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237) by 10.7%.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X and A380M are built for entirely different tasks, and the architectural gap reflects that. The MI300X uses CDNA 3.0, a compute-optimized architecture with no graphics pipeline. Its API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and it has zero ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The A380M uses Xe-HPG, a graphics-capable architecture with 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, plus 8 ray tracing cores and full API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate.

Process technology separates them as well. The MI300X is built on TSMC’s 5 nm node with a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The A380M uses TSMC’s 6 nm node with a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors, more than 21 times the A380M’s 7,200 million, across a die that is roughly 6.5 times larger.

The memory architectures share no common ground. The MI300X uses HBM3 stacked memory with 192 GB capacity and an 8192-bit interface. The A380M uses discrete GDDR6 with 6 GB on a 96-bit bus. The MI300X’s 5.32 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the A380M’s 186.0 GB/s. This explains the MI300X’s suitability for memory-bound compute workloads such as large model inference or training, where data movement dominates execution time.

Clock behavior differs notably. The MI300X has a 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost clock. The A380M has a higher base clock of 1550 MHz but a lower boost clock of 2000 MHz. The A380M’s higher base clock suggests a design tuned for sustained operation at lower power, while the MI300X relies on its massive parallel array rather than clock speed.

Shader resources are also vastly different. The MI300X contains 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs. The A380M contains 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs. Texture rate scales accordingly: 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X versus 128.0 GTexel/s for the A380M. FP16 throughput also diverges: the MI300X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the A380M reaches 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes FP16 at twice its FP32 rate.

Form factors reinforce the divide. The MI300X is an OAM module with no display outputs and no power connectors, relying on the host system’s power delivery. The A380M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent display outputs, designed for laptops or compact systems. The MI300X requires a 1150 W suggested PSU; the A380M has no listed PSU requirement.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins in every measured compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is 20 times the A380M’s 4.096 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is about 10 times the A380M’s 8.192 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the MI300X by a factor of 20. Memory bandwidth favors it by a factor of 28.6. Capacity favors it by a factor of 32 in gigabytes.

The A380M has clear advantages in specific areas, but none appear in compute benchmarks. It wins on power efficiency by design: 35 W versus 750 W is a 21.4-fold reduction in thermal load. It has graphics capabilities the MI300X lacks entirely, including rasterization hardware, ray tracing cores, and API support. The A380M also has a higher base clock, 1550 MHz versus 1000 MHz, which may improve responsiveness in latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale across thousands of cores.

For workloads that require pixel output, the A380M is the only option of the two. The MI300X produces no pixels at all. For any workload that requires standard graphics APIs, the MI300X cannot participate. The A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

For compute, the MI300X dominates entirely. The recorded OpenCL score of 317,994 places it above all but a few accelerators in the database. Its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA data center parts: the B200, H200 NVL, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada Generation. The A380M has no recorded benchmark score, so the database cannot place it in a compute hierarchy, but its specification suggests it targets far lighter workloads.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in nearly every specification field. Process node: 5 nm for the MI300X, 6 nm for the A380M. Transistors: 153,000 million versus 7,200 million. Die size: 1017 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density: 150.4 million per mm² versus 45.9 million per mm².

Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 1550 MHz. Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). Memory size: 192 GB versus 6 GB. Memory type: HBM3 versus GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 96 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 19,456 versus 1,024. TMUs: 1,216 versus 64. ROPs: 0 versus 32. Ray tracing cores: not listed for the MI300X, 8 for the A380M. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 750 W versus 35 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus MXM Module. Power connectors: None versus not listed. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus not listed. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.1). Display outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent. DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4.

Release dates differ by roughly 11 months. The A380M launched on 2023-01-23. The MI300X launched on 2023-12-05. The MI300X’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct; the A380M has no recorded predecessor. The A380M’s production status is Active; the MI300X lists no production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the MI300X and the A380M. The MI300X has one recorded OpenCL score of 317,994, and the A380M has no recorded scores. The comparison therefore relies on the MI300X’s measured performance against its nearest rivals and on the specification deltas between the two chips.

The MI300X’s OpenCL result places it in elite company. It is 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which scores 334,891. It is 8% behind the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345,482. Against the NVIDIA L40S, the MI300X leads by 7.5%, with the L40S scoring 295,763. Against the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation, it leads by 10.7%, with that card scoring 287,237.

These deltas frame the MI300X as a top-tier compute accelerator. The A380M, by contrast, has no comparable data. Its percentile rank of 50 places it at the median of all GPUs in the database, but with an average benchmark score of 0, that rank reflects an absence of measurements rather than a performance level.

The specification comparison shows the scale of the gap. The MI300X’s FP32 throughput is 19.95 times the A380M’s. Its FP16 throughput is 9.97 times. Its texture rate is 19.95 times. Its memory bandwidth is 28.6 times. Its memory capacity is 32 times. Its transistor count is 21.25 times. Its die area is 6.48 times.

The A380M counters with a 1.55 times higher base clock and a 1.55 times higher memory clock in MHz terms. It also has a 3.1 times higher effective memory data rate, 15.5 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps, though this is irrelevant given the enormous bus width difference. The A380M’s pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s is meaningful only because the MI300X has none.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For compute workloads, the MI300X is the only viable choice. Its 317,994 OpenCL score, 100th percentile ranking, and 192 GB of HBM3 memory position it for large-scale data center tasks. Its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA accelerators with scores within 10.7% either direction, confirming it competes at the highest tier of the database.

For graphics workloads, the A380M is the only option. The MI300X has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no rasterization hardware. The A380M provides DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, 8 ray tracing cores, and 32 ROPs. Its 35 W TDP and MXM form factor make it suitable for compact systems.

The MI300X’s advantage in compute is not marginal. It delivers 20 times the FP32 throughput, 10 times the FP16 throughput, and 28.6 times the memory bandwidth of the A380M. These are order-of-magnitude differences, not incremental gains. The A380M’s advantages, higher base clock and graphics features, do not translate to the compute domains where the MI300X operates.

The MI300X’s position relative to its rivals is precise: 5% behind the H200 NVL, 8% behind the B200, 7.5% ahead of the L40S, and 10.7% ahead of the RTX 6000 Ada Generation. This places it in a narrow band of top accelerators where a few percentage points separate first and fourth place. The A380M has no such reference points in the database.

Selection depends entirely on workload. Compute buyers should look at the MI300X, which sits within 8% of the fastest recorded accelerator in its peer group. Graphics buyers should look at the A380M, which is the only one of the two with any graphics capability. The two chips do not compete; they serve separate markets with separate requirements.